fons adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:01:10PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > By this logic, locking my doors is immoral because it diminishes >> > people's freedom to roam around my house. >> >> Those people have not paid for access to your house. Purchasers of >> proprietary software _have_ paid for access to the software. > > They have paid for a license to use it, and for nothing else.
Well, then they might have some expectation to be able to use it, no? Without the ability to adapt the software to different devices or applications, or fix errors (or pay someone to do that), the software is crippled in its usefulness. When buying electronic appliances, at one time you could rely on the schematics being in the inside. That meant you could make full use of the appliance, adapt it to different problems (using a radio as a guitar amplifier), repair it and keep it in working order, and you could take it to service men of your choice to have it adapted or fixed. That's basically what workmanship is about: offering the best to the customer to make use of. Just 20 years ago, it was customary to provide computer purchasers or service people with schematics, BIOS listings and similar stuff (partly on request and for payment). Now it is trade secret this, closed source that, not for your eyes this. It is annoying. If I want a Porsche engine in a VW bug, I can buy the parts and all relevant service manuals and plans, and put a mechanic to work. If I want Excel running on GNU/Linux, I can just shoot myself. I am not paying for such crippled software. If that means that I have to do with less sophisticated free software, so be it. It is a price to pay, but at least it keeps me in control and power and responsibility. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
